A year of conflict and division

The war in Iraq dominated the global agenda, but resolved few problems.

If there was a unifying theme in global affairs over the past year, sadly it was conflict. One conflict dominated. It brought to an end an evil regime, albeit leaving something of a vacuum. Yet it also served to define a new era in which the will of the broader international community was deemed by the United States as secondary to its own interests. The Iraq war was about more than just the removal of Saddam Hussein. It was about the assertion of US power in a way that left the remainder of the international community in little doubt about how the US - at least the US under President George Bush - sees its place in the world. The measure of global discomfort with the new US hegemony has so far been expressed mainly in the annoyed reactions of the leaders of countries such as France and Russia, but the full consequences of that discomfort may not be evident for many years to come.

The enduring image of that war must surely be the bedraggled, defeated face of Saddam, literally dragged from a hole in the ground eight months after his regime was ousted by a US-led coalition. A year ago such an image seemed almost unthinkable. Saddam, defiant in the face of demands for an accounting of the evil done in the name of his regime, did not seem like the kind of leader who could be reduced to such a pathetic figure. The capture of Saddam came as a boost to coalition leaders, most notably President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair at a time of growing doubt over the justifications for the conflict. Despite a high degree of unanimity in the international community about the defeat of Saddam, it was bitterly divided over the decision and path to war in the first place. Without sanction from the United Nations Security Council, the forces that invaded Iraq embarked upon a course that redefined the superpower status of the US at the expense of traditional allies, particularly in Europe. The vast majority of the world's nations chose not to openly support the US-led war. The "coalition of the willing" comprised just 30 countries, of which only a handful - including Australia - actually committed forces to the conflict. Countries such as Bulgaria, Eritrea and Afghanistan were scarcely in a position to lend more than moral support.

Even within those countries that supported the war, including the US and Australia, there were bitter divisions. The US argued that the war was necessary to bring an end to Saddam's rule of terror, to weaken the terrorist threat, to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq and to halt the development and imminent danger posed by weapons of mass destruction. Freedom and democracy in Iraq are still fanciful notions, eight months after the Baathist regime's defeat. The search for weapons of mass destruction officially continues, but none have yet been found. While Saddam's defeat and capture were welcome, some of the justifications put forward by the coalition for the Iraq war have not been sustained.

There can be no such thing as a "good" war, even when the motivations for waging it seem just. Wars will always have unintended consequences and victims. The Iraq war, like so many others, claimed thousands of innocent lives. The immediate future in Iraq seems no clearer now than it was before the battle started. The idea that a democratic Iraq is about to blossom in a country riven by ethnic and religious divisions and in a region with few democratic traditions seems almost fanciful, even more so in the light of the bloodshed and lawlessness that have followed the departure of Saddam. Iraq could just as readily become victim to a different sort of tyranny, at the hands of extreme political or religious elements. The eventual outcome will have a profound impact on the search for peacefulco-existence throughout the Middle East.

Unresolved, too, is the long-term impact of the conflict upon relationships between the US and nations such as France, Germany and Russia - all of which opposed the coalition assault. There must now be some form of genuine rapprochement between Europe and the US. Moreover, among the lessons of the US-led assault on Iraq is that such an ambitious undertaking without the backing of the broader international community will always be problematic. The legitimacy of the operation in terms of international law was dubious at best. But having defeated the Iraqi regime, the US has clearly struggled on the ground to re-establish even basic infrastructure, let alone law and order. That is why the United Nations remains the most appropriate framework for such interventions. The institutions of the UN can best provide not just a legal framework but, more importantly, muster the resources necessary for reconstruction.

Iraq was not the only source of conflict. Other wars and confrontations continue around the globe. One of the consequences of a more bellicose US has been an increasingly antagonistic stance by one of the world's most desperate and tragic dictatorships - that of Kim il-Jong in North Korea. For the moment the threat of some erratic act by Pyongyang seems to have been diffused, largely through the intercession of China. Other conflicts such as those in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Aceh, Chechnya and the Congo may have slipped from the headlines but remain unresolved. Perhaps the most intractable of all is that between Palestinians and Israelis. Until pressure is placed upon both sides - on Israel to move on the issue of settlements and in turn on the Palestinians to rein in the use of terrorism - a process that will bring an end to violence in the Middle East cannot in truth begin. The US is the only country with the diplomatic power to exert that pressure. Ironically, at year's end terror wrought by humankind has again been eclipsed by nature. As Iran - a nation dubbed part of an "axis of evil" by the US - struggles to come to terms with an earthquake causing an estimated 30,000 deaths, the world has rallied to its aid. It is a small sign of hope.